Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1121 (PAT)

Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar

2014-11-12

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT : Heard Shri Ganpati Trivedi at length. 2. It appears petitioner has two grievances, first with regard to the revised pay scale as a consequence of the 5th Pay Revision and the second with regard to grant of ACP. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, comparing the pay scale which he initially got upon employment through 34th Combined Competitive Examination to the pay scale which others are now receiving upon the revisions, there is a big disparity and that is in fact his first grievance. For example, all persons who, in 1989, were receiving pay of Rs 100, upon the successive revisions, others are now receiving Rs. 1,500/- whereas petitioner is receiving only 1,200/-. 3. Having considered the matter, in my view, learned counsel for the State is correct. When this alleged disparity was noticed, upon petitioner’s representation, the matter was referred to the Fitment Committee at the stage of the 05th Pay Revision. The Fitment Committee considered the matter and fixed the pay scale. The grievance of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the pay scale revision in one branch has not been made available to him in the other branch of the Government. Learned counsel for the State is correct in pointing out that the 05th Pay Revision was not done by revising pay equivalence rather the entire exercise was redone on post to post basis. Therefore, it was not as if all those, who were in a particular pay scale irrespective of the cadre or the nature of service, there pays got revised in the same proportion. This aspect has been considered by the Fitment Committee. That being so, I see no reason to interfere in the recommendation of the Fitment Committee. 4. However, Shri Trivedi submits that even the pay scale, as granted by the Fitment Committee is concerned, petitioner has not been paid his pay and allowances accordingly. 5. It is for the petitioner to represent the Secretary of the Department of Art, Culture and Youth for payment of arrears giving details thereof who will look into the matter and pass appropriate orders within one month of the representation being received by him. 6. The next grievance of the petitioner is that when the occasion to grant the first ACP arose, instead of granting the pay scale of the next higher post, petitioner was granted the next higher pay scale. 6. The next grievance of the petitioner is that when the occasion to grant the first ACP arose, instead of granting the pay scale of the next higher post, petitioner was granted the next higher pay scale. There is a big difference between the two. Shri Trivedi submits that earlier there was one post of Regional Deputy Director which was the next promotional post available to the petitioner. When State of Jharkhand was formed, this post went to the State of Jharkhand. Accordingly, when the question of grant of ACP came, State ought to have considered that there was a post of Regional Deputy Director and that post being there, the pay scale of that post be given to the petitioner. I am afraid, the contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that once the said singular post went to the State of Jharkhand and the State of Bihar chose not to create a similar post then the post became non-existent. If that be so then when occasion arose to grant the first ACP to the petitioner, the next higher post being non-existent what would be granted and what was granted the next higher pay scale, petitioner cannot make any grievance on this count. 7. Thus, I find no merit in the writ petition except with regard to the claim of alleged arrears of salary. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.